Why EQ a P-A and not studio monitor?

[laperlestudio]

Why do I use an EQ on a P-A for live gig and get it sound good with all the compromise of the room, exept a return of the sub form the backwall when the room is empty, and everybody say that the EQ is a bad idea for studio that I shoul treat. I know it's better to treat, I know it really clear the problem because it absorb the frequencies, but suppresive EQing qork good in live I can really start wih a bad sound in the room and after an hour be very happy with the sound... Why it does not translate to the studio?

[TranscendingM]

Originally Posted by laperlestudio

Why do I use an EQ on a P-A for live gig and get it sound good with all the compromise of the room, exept a return of the sub form the backwall when the room is empty, and everybody say that the EQ is a bad idea for studio that I shoul treat. I know it's better to treat, I know it really clear the problem because it absorb the frequencies, but suppresive EQing qork good in live I can really start wih a bad sound in the room and after an hour be very happy with the sound... Why it does not translate to the studio?

I'd say for one, the space is different. Usually a PA is used in some sort of larger space for performance. One could say then, it's use is different than critical listening. But also this larger space a PA normally find itself in porportionally increases the listening area, in a way our "critical points" are extended. Low freqencies in particular which are most problematic in typical studio sapces have room to develop in larger spaces.

[Jeffrey Hedback]

Richard Heyser crossed this bridge for all of us in the 70's. His findings are as simple as you can't EQ a reflection. You have time, frequency and amplitude. EQ addresses freq & amplitude. The higher the frequency the more troubles you'll get into with EQ. In small room, you can EQ for a specific location and might improve the response...more likely you'll simple trade problems or make your space less accurate.

You CAN very successfully use specifically applied subtractive EQ with a sub and reduce major modal resonance.

Today's wave of Digital Room Correction systems (Ergo, Audyssey, JBL's, etc..) all make efforts to address time domain. All are MOST effective in a well treated room with early relfection points tamed (RFZ) and speakers/ears are properly positioned.

Personal observation on engineers with both live mixing and studio chops: I've found that these rare people who are adept at both can deliver solid mixes out of rooms with reflections problems...I suggest their ears are more used to interpreting/filtering the good/bad elements of a space and maybe even unknowlingly, adjust.

[matt thomas]

Because eq is a quick fix, and not the best fix

matt

[ph1l]

Well I thought the main use of eq-ing a PA is for reducing feedback?

[AlexK]

Originally Posted by ph1l

Well I thought the main use of eq-ing a PA is for reducing feedback?

That's 'ringing out' and is often done on an insert on each channel or bus as opposed to just EQing the entire PA (depending on the kit available).

[laperlestudio]

Originally Posted by AlexK

That's 'ringing out' and is often done on an insert on each channel or bus as opposed to just EQing the entire PA (depending on the kit available).

you have REQ for monitor to reduce feedback and try to make it sound as best as possible, and you have the EQ for the p-a to make it sound the more neutral or natural, and then eq opn the channel to improve each instrument sound.

[DanDan]

PA's have positive acoustic feedback from the speakers to the mics. Graphics and other system eq's are used to get this under control. Live sound would be impossible without this, even with perfect speakers and mics. Studio monitoring doesn't have this problem.
A search will give you lots of reasons why not to eq in monitoring. Rest assured that most of us have tried it and abandoned it. I do believe a parametric can be useful to diminish the strength of the very lowest mode, or two. However, a high quality paramtric is needed, in order to preserve fidelity. IMHO Bag End have taken a better shot at this with their Active Bass Trap Sub.
DD

[a zombie]

Also you are using your monitors to create a mix, not to just play it back.

Your trying to make the thing going into your speakers sound good, not the thing coming out.

[lomky]

I think the biggest difference would be the fact that in live sound you are creating a mix that is to be heard one time in the specific venue that the music is being played in, while in recorded music you are trying to get the best sounding compromise that will sound good on all systems as the media will be portable and heard more than once.

If you were creating a mix that is to be heard one time in a specific environment (one time showing in a theater or something) I think the "PA eq" approach would work out fine, but as soon as you make the mix portable you will need to approach it with a non-eq'ed monitoring system.

[wwittman]

the audience is there only to enjoy (they hope) the show

not to make critical, lasting DECISIONS based on what they hear